The political and social dynamics in Ukraine since late 2013 created a significant challenge both for Russia and for the “collective West”. It led to the growing need to reexamine the structure of relations on two levels: between Russia and Ukraine, as well as within the broader community of nations, which also includes the U.S., Western European countries, and China. The aim of the article is to assess the room for strategic deliberations in Moscow. It starts with an analysis of the recent crisis within the Ukraine and identifies the growing role of outside powers after the change of leadership in Kiev. It specifically focuses on American encouragement of the new Ukrainian authorities and the attempts of major European states to negotiate a détente between Moscow and Kiev. At the same time, it studies the core that underlies the cultural and identity roots of instability in Ukraine. The same factors, primarily related to linguistic divisions, affected situation in Crimea, however, in this case they had an even stronger effect. The author therefore presents the historical developments that created the Crimean problem in Russian-Ukrainian relations and the depth of the current geographic and logistical issues for Moscow related to its reintegration. The article also examines broader patterns of economic and political relations between Russia and its European partners, which help to explain the different dynamic in policies of various Western powers. While Germany, France, and some other EU members have extensive relations with Moscow and are dependent on its energy supplies, they demonstrated greater restraint in comparison with the U.S. However, Washington’s uncompromising stance demanded that the Russian leadership search for alternatives in its strategic orientations. The realignment with China represented an obvious, although problematic choice. Today, it is of crucial importance for Russia to broaden its political and economic base in the Pacific. In this regard, it lags behind China, when positions itself as the guardian of free-trade principles, while the U.S. is seeking to construct preferential economic relations with likeminded nations in Asia.

In the latest decade, destabilization close to the Russian borders has been increasing the risk of the country’s participation in low-intensity conflicts and makes Moscow insist on its military presence in neighboring territories. Moreover, there has been a tendency for Russia’s zone of military presence to geographically expand to include not only neighboring countries, but also regions associated with the Soviet sphere of interest in the Cold War period, which is vital to ensure its national interests. Whether it is purposefully or spontaneously done, the process obviously increases the risk of Russia’s involvement in military conflicts and may lead to an overexertion of state power. This danger sets scholars with the task of working out an algorithm to help in formulating an objective evaluation of Moscow’s interests in a conflict and the practicality of involvement or non-involvement, as well as to work out a policy in case Russia is already involved.

The research contains an analytical model for national interest evaluation in contemporary international low-intensity conflicts in forecasting how Russia could possibly limit its involvement in such contingencies and avoid the dissipation of its resources. The study is based on the cases the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict in 2008 and the riots in Kyrgyzstan in 2010. The analytical model is an algorithm for assessing Russia's national interests in low-intensity conflicts through consistent research on the interests, goals, and tactics related to the possible actions of our country could engage in at the beginning of the military conflict’s escalation. The algorithm includes political, economic, humanitarian, and technological aspects of participation in conflicts. It also helps to assess the interests of a state concerning its involvement in low-intensity conflicts during their escalation. It is applicable in preparation for situation analyses of various conflicts in their escalation phase and in assessing the risks of involvement.

The ability of the European Union to actively interact with other partners in world politics and the  unique dynamic of its behavior draw attention to the phenomenon of its “actorness”. The major theoretical approaches substantially disagree on how to evaluate the EU as an international actor. The study of key striking points may be helpful in investigating why there is no substantial progress in this field.

The realist interpretation of the EU is based on the denial of any possibility for a non-state entity to become an international actor because it is deprived of some key characteristics, the most important of which is the ability to use its armed forces. As a result, the EU is classified as an international institutional framework, which helps to prevent a conflict between European countries and provide an opportunity to project their power beyond its borders. Development of the EU as an international actor will depend on its ability to continue the process of political unification: further centralization may lead to the formation of a state- like entity; and vice-versa, the maintaining of the current institutional framework means that the EU would combine its status of being an international organization with the characteristics of an international regime and political union, which has a certain level of autonomy in the areas of delegated competences. At the same time, the EU already has the ability to exercise significant political influence and the potential to change the common way of dealing with international relations (the neoliberal interpretation). The most important consequence of its international presence is the transformation of the concept of national interests. Despite the fact that the system of cooperation within the EU cannot overcome the conditions of international anarchy, it provides opportunities and encourages the implementation of common interests, turning the EU into a powerful global political and economic player. The political challenges of globalization push forward the process of institutional unification on the EU level. The formation of a common system of values, loyalty, and forms of collective identity makes it extremely difficult for the architects to control their new entity. For many constructivist scholars, the political structure of the EU can be compared with the state or is understood as being its postmodern form. The results of this study indicate that key disagreements over the investigated theoretical approaches about the phenomenon of the EU’s “actorness” are associated primarily with a one-sided interpretation of the relationship between the structure of the international system and its elements. A possible solution for this theoretical stalemate could be assumptions about ontological equality between structures and actors/agents. In this case, it opens up a way to find out the extent to which the EU has an “actorness” in the current international system, what in turn allows one to overcome the dichotomy of conceptualizing the EU as a“state-international organization”.

China today approaches the end of the “textbookish” era of studying by the West, which has been lasting for more than 150 years. The Great Power understood the value of its historical experience, traditional political culture, and philosophy with its logic and metaphysics. Chinese scientists actively “re­understand” and “reformulate” politically the thought of their great predecessors and formulate concepts of international relations, geopolitics, and the world system. Yan Xuetong, Qin Yaqing, Ye Zicheng, Zhao Tingyang, and many others have become a visible part of Western discourse on the problems of global policy, and such Chinese journals as “Contemporary International Relations”, “World Economy and Policy”, and “Intern a tional Politics”, the Chinese equivalents of “Foreign Affairs”, “Russia in World Politics”, and “Internat ional Process”, have won respect among scientists.

The article tries to show the Chinese viewpoint on the history of their “international relations” discipline. The author of the article had to find “international” content in the large quantity of original sources, systemize them, characterize them, and present the main problems of all the periods of the institutionalization of this discipline in China. It reflects the impact of China’s humiliation by Western powers on the national intellectual landscape, as well as the role of the Communist ideology and the Party in the development of the national school of International Studies. The article also introduces unknown Chinese literature to Russian researchers, and it also considers the Chinese discourse in its own context instead of “Western discourse in a Chinese context”.

The article provides an analytical review of academic monographs on the United Nations published in 2013–2015. The author of the article defines the general trend of the research of the UN as “a change of the UN discourse”, transitioning from the handling of the UN as an intergovernmental organization to its understanding as an institution of global governance. The purpose of the article consists in characterizing an up-to-date UN discourse, identifying its recent components, and exploring the mechanisms and ways of its formation.

Modern UN discourse is characterized, firstly, by new research subjects and the formulation of new research questions. Contemporary authors supplement previously developed themes of security, human rights, and development by new issues; in particular, they pay considerable attention to the financial aspects, peace-building, and participation of non-state actors in UN activities. Secondly, a new interpretation has been given to traditional subjects of the study of Organization; for example, human security is treated as an integral part of the basis and substantive purposes of collective security.

Special attention in modern publications is devoted to the issues of so-called new actors participating in the UN system and the increasing of their activities. New actors are mostly non-state actors, including non-governmental organizations, pressure groups, expert communities, etc. New non-state actors are viewed as elements of the internal institutional design of international organization, and not as sources of external impact on it. Unlike the “old” actors, including states and their associations or blocs, they create closer links with the UN Secretariat than as states do as a result of the convergence of interests between the  the Secretariat and non-state actors.

Generalization of accumulated knowledge on the UN and latest trends in the development of the organization provides the basis for a more detailed understanding of the UN. The United Nations is not only the organizational structure of the union of states, it is a much more complex institution that includes a variety of state and non-state elements as components.

In Harry Truman’s 1949 inaugural address, he claimed that «more than half the people in the world are living in conditions approaching misery. For the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to relieve the suffering of those people». However, the problem is still pressing regardless of the ambitious expectations and attempts made by the global community to reduce poverty. According to a UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs survey, about 1.2 billion people in the world are still living in extreme poverty despite the significant progress of humanity in combating this social phenomenon. It would be reasonable to assume that poor and developing states should pay attention to the developed USA and Canada, but according to surveys, the issues of poverty and social inequality are high on the agenda of these countries, too. The article aims to study poverty as well as the approaches used by Washington and Ottawa to resolve internal social contradictions concerning increased social inequality and the state of the poor. Apart from that, the article concentrates on the history and transformations of the approaches used by the governments of these states in reducing poverty and improving living standards. The author concludes that the issue remains unresolved regardless of the efforts made by the authorities of the abovementioned states, and it requires a comprehensive approach from the global community in order to ameliorate the situation.

The article studies two traditional realist types of behavior ­ balancing and bandwagoning. Historically, the policy of balancing was typical to large states – the Great Powers who tried to restrain each other and thus maintain balance of power in the international system. Others – small and medium countries were more likely to bandwagon, because of their inability to resist external pressure from the Great Powers independently.

The collapse of the bipolar system introduced significant adjustments. In particular, small and medium countries now have new opportunities to balance external threats. Integration has become a process where it became very clear. On the one hand, integration gave some benefit to these countries, especially within close cooperation and removal of trade barriers with economically more successful and powerful states. However, on the other hand, such a disproportionate convergence created for small and medium countries certain threats. Lack of economic borders increased their dependence on the stronger partners, while creation of supranational branches of power moved this dependence on a political level, as supranational institutions, of course, took into account interests of major subjects of integration primarily.

Taking into account that processes of regional integration have been coming increasingly intensive during the last decade, the author targeted to study in this context new behavior of small and medium countries. It was found that balancing and bandwagoning are two components of their integration policy. The ratio of balancing and bandwagoning influences development of the integration process. When small and medium countries accumulate sufficient resources to build the balancing policy, integration slows down. It means that for the successful integration with small and medium countries needs a permanent dominance of bandwagoning over balancing in their integration policy.

At the beginning of the XXI century, the political landscape in Turkey changed significantly. The rise of the Justice and Development Party caused a significant decrease in the traditional influence of the military over the state policy. The strengthening of the civil authorities was also accompanied by a clear trend towards a greater political role for religion in Turkish society. The Islamic orientation of the Justice and Development Party clearly broke with the Kemalist paradigm in national politics. The internal political transformation was followed by a shift in Turkish foreign policy. Ankara attempted to position itself as a regional centre of power in the Middle East, however, the initial successes in this field transformed into an eventual weakening of Turkish standing in the world. While the region witnessed growing confrontation among competing fractions, Ankara’s policy towards Syria alienated it from Iran and the Shia bloc. Meanwhile, its support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt put it at odds with Saudi Arabia. The previous weakening of ties with the West and primarily with the United States made its strategic position even more problematic. Finally, in recent years, traditional partnership ties with Israel have also deteriorated.

As the international environment becomes less favourable for Turkey, its internal politics today are defined by the rise of authoritarian trends in the policy of the Justice and Development Party. The victory over the military establishment enabled it to consolidate its influence by using all available instruments, including pressure on police, justice representatives, and mass-media.

The abovementioned developments in the domestic and foreign policies of Turkey were clearly monitored by its American ally. The U.S. perceived the shifts ongoing in the country quite dispassionately until recently. Today, there is a growing annoyance in Washington with the authoritarian trends in Turkey and its too independently minded foreign policy. 

The article is dedicated to crucial issues in Russian-American cooperation in the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program was designed by Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar to assist the Soviet Union and then Russia in solving multiple problems related to nuclear weapons and nuclear materials after the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that time, there was perception of a threat that the Russian government would not be able to ensure the safety of its inherited Soviet nuclear capabilities. The situation considerably worsened with the severe economic crisis in the USSR and the complicated financial and economic situation in Russia, who initiated radical reforms to transition to a market economy. In addition, the transportation of nuclear warheads to Russia from Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan in the framework of the program of nuclear disarmament required significant financial resources.

The Nunn-Lugar Program started in June 17, 1992 with a document called the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States regarding the safe and secure transportation, storage and destruction of weapons and preventing the proliferation of weapons. The legal basis of NLP on the American side was formed by two documents: the Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 1991 (December 12, 1991) that regulated the provision of large-scale aid to the USSR in the safe transportation, storage, and elimination of nuclear weapons; and the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 (CTR, 11 October 1993) that detailed the spheres of cooperation with Russia and other post-Soviet states in the nuclear industry and considered the need to provide assistance to Russia for the destruction of stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Despite a number of disadvantages, the Program had a positive significance for Russia and definitely fulfilled its historic mission by making a contribution to neutralizing the threat to nuclear safety in Russia. In addition, the Nunn-Lugar Program is an example of a completely new and unprecedented variant of the functioning of non-proliferation regimes - the interaction is much deeper than was provided by the authors of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Interview with Mikhail Titarenko.

A book review: Кравченко С.А. Социокультурная динамика еды: риски, уязвимости, востребованность гуманистической биополитики. Монография. М.: МГИМО-Университет, 2014. 198 с.

A book review: «Долгосрочное прогнозирование сценариев развития военно-политической обстановки: аналитический доклад / Рук. авт. коллектива А.И. Подберезкин. М: МГИМО-Университет, 2014.

Рецензия на книгу: Введение в прикладной анализ международных ситуаций: Учебник / Под ред. Т.А. Шаклеиной. М.: ЗАО Издательство «Аспект Пресс», 2014. 256 с.